• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Vol. XXVII, Issue 7 December 9, 2005“Gary Busey is Gingerdead Man”
 
Page 2Current Event
Bush issued a document on November30th called the “National Strategy for Victory inIraq” and it outlines what needs to be done towin the war. It’s about fucking time. Couldn’twe have used one of these when the war started?Whatever, now we’ve got a plan to get outvictorious. What did wedo to deserve such an exitstrategy? Well, apparent-ly, we complained enough.We owe it to Peter D.Feaver, a Duke Universitypolitical scientist who hasbeen studying publicopinion on the war.Everyone knows that pub-lic opinion has been wan-ing but Dr. Feaver broughtan analysis of polls from2003 and 2004 thatshowed the Americanpublic would support awar that we would ulti-mately win. Our voiceshave been heard! Joyousday of rapture! We com-plained so much that Bushwent ahead and publishedsome more propaganda toget us on his side!I might have jumped to conclusions.Maybe it’s not propagan-da. Let’s read into thedocument a little before we accuse the presidentof trying to manipulate us. Let’s get the factsstraight before we invade his document underwhat the
 L.A. Times
is calling forged intelli-gence and try to establish a democracy there.Looking over the contents of the document, justthe contents page, the word “victory” appearssix times.On page six we’re greeted by a quotefrom an address the President gave on June28th, 2003. “Our mission in Iraq is clear.We’re hunting down terrorists. We’re helpingIraqis build a free nation that is an ally in thewar on terror. We’re advancing freedom...”Alright, I’m stopping there. I can’t go on andlisten to this rhetoricagain. Let’s move on. Underthe header “VICTORY INIRAQ DEFINED” we get, “Asthe central front in theglobal war on terror, suc-cess in Iraq is an essentialelement in the long waragainst the ideology thatbreeds international ter-rorism.” Success? Anessential element of fight-ing a war? Really? I had noidea. Apparently, theadministration didn’t knowit either until now. Perhapsthey thought that losingground and support wasgoing to lull the oppositioninto a false sense of securi-ty?“The ultimate victorywill be achieved in stages.”We’ve got three stages here.The short term, mediumterm, and the longer term.The basic gist is puttingdown the insurgency andemploying some economic reforms to “lay thefoundation for a sound economy.” The mediumterm involves Iraq fending for itself. An Iraqthat cam defeat terrorists and insurgents andprovide it’s own security. The longer term goalis an Iraq that has defeated the terrorists andneutralized the insurgency. So the three stepprocess is:1. Fight insurgents.2. Fight some more insurgents by themselves.3. Defeat insurgents.I’m going to move away from this child-ish view of the things in Iraq. I did simplify thegoals a little but if you’d like to read the docu-ment you can see that I didn’t leave that muchout. You can find the “National Strategy forVictory in Iraq” here, at http://www.white-house.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_national_strate-gy_20051130.pdf The last line I’m going to bring up saidthis, “Prevailing in Iraq will help us win thewar on terror.” Firstly, I’m glad it’s no longerthe global struggle against extremism. That wasa retarded attempt at pulling the wool over oureyes if I ever saw one. The fact that Sean Combschanged his nickname from Puff Daddy to P.Diddy doesn’t change the fact that he wasinvolved in an ugly court battle. Secondly, has-n’t everyone realized that a war on an idea cannever be won? You can fight the people but youcan’t shoot a gun at a concept.I lied; I looked down the page and sawthis, “THE BENEFITS OF VICTORY IN IRAQ.”Time for some more right wing rhetoric!Helping the people of Iraq is the morally rightthing to do! Winning in Iraq makes Americasafer, stronger and more certain of its future! I just don’t think it’s morally right to help some-one who didn’t ask us for help and then whenthey get on their feet we ask them to help usfight a concept. We help them by tearing theirnation in two and throwing their largest citiesinto an explosive chaos.I want to end on this note. As reportedin
The New York Times
more people are willingto support a war with high human cost if theythink it’s a good cause and if they think that wecan win the war. So if everyone buys into thisdocument the war will be able to go on with pub-lic support. I was right, it is propaganda.
We’ve Got A Strategy!That’s Better Than A Mission Statement...
ByRobPearsall
 
IT’S A THREE PRONGED STRATEGY TARGETING THE SHORT MEDIUM ANDLONGER TERMS,Courtesy of www.whitehouse.gov
The death penalty has been a subject of heated debate for many years, the past week hasintensified that anger in the US and Australia.The 1,000thexecution in the US was carried outFriday in North Carolina. Kenneth Lee Boydwas put to death by lethal injection for the dou-ble murders he committed in 1988. Some saythat this is a milestone,but milestones are usu-ally something to beproud of. This is 1,000deaths since 1976 whenthe US Supreme Courtbrought back the deathpenalty after a nine-yearsuspension. Also onFriday, an Australianman, Nguyen Tuong Van,was hanged under theSingapore governmentfor drug trafficking.Australia was up in armsat this execution becausethey abolished the deathpenalty in 1973Later on Friday, the 1,001 death wascarried out when Shawn Humphries died inSouth Carolina for the murder of a shop keeperin 1994. His lawyer said that he would haverather been 1,000 so that people would remem-ber him. Boyd on the other hand, did not wantto be remembered that way, saying “I’d hate tobe remembered as that, I don’t like the idea of being picked as a number.”Nguyen Tuong Van was convicted fordrug trafficking 396 grams (14 ounces) of hero-in at the city-state’s Changi Airport in 2002, onthe way from Cambodia to Australia. PrimeMinister John Howard saidthat this would hurt theconnections betweenAustralia and Singapore.There were many appealsfrom the Australian gov-ernment to spare his lifebut none were listened to.Nguyen said he was tryingto pay off his twin brother’sdebt to a loan shark. Thisexecution sparked protestsin Australia and vigilswere held with bellsandgongs sounding 25 times atthe hour of his execution.Support for capitalpunishment has weaken in recent years, whichcould be due to a number of factors. The BBCreports, “In recent years, enthusiasm for thepunishment has dwindled in the US and thecourts have been less inclined to use it.” “64%of Americans support the death penalty, thelowest level in 27 years and down from 80% in1994,” was shown by a Gallup Poll. 80% is aextremely high number compared to today. Itcould also be due to the fact that if the courtsare not using it as much, people will not want toresort to such measures to get “revenge.” Someargue on whether the death penalty is just that,revenge. It should only be used as a form of punishment and not revenge for the families.Why should you have to murder more peopleafter someone has already died?This debate is not helped by the fact thatPresident Bush openly supports the deathpenalty. A spokesman from the White Housereports, “The president strongly supports thedeath penalty because he believes ultimately ithelps save innocent lives.” Saving innocentlives is done by not murdering people if you donot have to. There are other ways of punishingnot involving murder. While Bush was Governorfor six years in Texas, he permitted 152 deathsand only stopped one death sentence by lessen-ing the severity of punishment. Texas carriesthe most deaths by capital punishment out of allthe states, with 355 of the 1,000 deaths.Virginia and Oklahoma are in second and third.This milestone for the US should not belooked upon as an accomplishment. These twoincidents will definitely lead way to more dis-cussions and debates on the death penalty.
The Death Penalty Sparks Outrage Again
ByMelanieDonovan
SCARED STRAIGHT... ON DEATHROW!Courtesy of AP
 
Page 3 Current Events 
On November 22, a panel of four journal-ists, all representing different aspects of thefield, discussed contemporary media issues inthe Tabler classroom space. The emergence of blogs, the recent CIA-gate controversy, and theperpetual conflict between ethics and the bot-tom line were discussed.The panel members all have had exten-sive experience with the multifaceted world of the media in print, broadcast, and electronicforms. Stony Brook University alumnus JoeCaponi, who is the editor of the Channel WebNetwork (www.channelweb.com); Carl Corry,editor in chief of Long Island Business News andregional director of the Society of ProfessionalJournalists; and Dustin Herlich of the Suffolk Standard participated. In addition, besides thepresence of these electronic and print journal-ists, there also was the presence of someonefrom the broadcast media universe. Ernst Star,formerly affiliated with television news inPhiladelphia, and who now is a professor atHofstra University as well as the assistantdirector of communications at Suffolk Community College’s Selden campus, was theretoo. Issues that all too often afflict the presswere addressed. The battle between thereporters’ civic responsibility to inform thepublic and work for the greater good and theneed to increase circulation. The editors’ needto choose what will sell more: sensationalism,sex and scandal or important, pressing topicsthat need to be covered for the public welfare.The public’s right to know versus the safety of individuals in harm’s way. What is news? Whatis a reporter-could it be someone off the streetwho has a computer and a connection to theInternet, and who is consequently able to startblogging about topics and events? What is thestate of the first amendment? All these ques-tions were raised at this panel discussion,where members of the media analysis classaudience of Norm Prusslin, assistant director of media at Stony Brook University, were invited toask questions pertaining to the press. Since allof the men on the panel were all familiar withthe inner struggles that go on within a news-room, they were aware of the dilemmas oftenfaced by editors. With decreasing readership,hence decreased circulation, newspapers oftenhave to make ambivalent editorial decisions tostay afloat financially.Covering something scandalous butunnecessary for the public to know to assist inmaking better, informed citizens is, unfortu-nately, the easy way to keep papers in the black.Shark attacks, sexual exploits, and the like areincreasingly headline grabbers and cover sto-ries. Yellow journalism has become a trend inboth the broadcast (especially the twenty-fourhour news cable networks) and print media. Asa result, intelligent, investigative reportingthat has the potential to improve the public’sunderstanding of critical issues is frequentlydelegated to page fourteen. While tabloid jour-nalism has existed for a while (back in the daysof Nellie Bly, who used sensationalism in a waythat it’s rarely used- to benefit the public; shedid undercover reporting in the nineteenth cen-tury), lately it has replaced journalism inplaces where journalism once existed.Journalists like the late Peter Jennings, whowas the last of the Big Three newsmen (DanRather and Tom Brokaw were the other two),were the few who dared to have integrity at atime when integrity among journalists wasdiminishing. Now that these role models formany have moved on for a variety of reasons,there has been the possibility of a journalisticvoid.Will reporters in the twenty-first cen-tury, a time when media conglomerates caremore about money than media ethics, believe inintegrity? This question comes to mind whenpondering the latest reporter debacles, namelythe leak of the identity of a CIA agent byreporters. New York Times reporter JudyMiller was jailed for being in contempt of court,and no shield law could protect her when sherefused to name the source of her informationabout the identity of the CIA agent ValeriePlame, the wife of an ambassador who was crit-ical of Bush. Shield laws, according to the FirstAmendment Center, are important in protectingthe confidentiality of sources.“Although the privileges recognized bythe federal and state courts and created bythe state legislatures vary…, most generallyprovide that the privileged information can-not be obtained unless the party seeking theinformation can establish that the informa-tion is highly material and relevant to thecase at issue, compelling need exists … , orthat it cannot be obtained by other means(www.firstamendmentcenter.org).”Additionally, another prestigious journal-ist, Robert Novak of the Washington Post, is theone who first leaked the identity of Ms. Plame.So two questions for the contemporary pressarise. Will courts find more reasons that arecompelling enough to force journalists to revealthe identity of their sources, consequently lim-iting journalists’ access to sources in thefuture? Will the concept of “do no harm,”encoded in the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (which can be found atwww.spj.org), be ignored again in the name of beating the competition, even if it jeopardizes alife (like Ms.Plame’s, for instance)?Journalists must now, more than ever, beethical. Journalists must also be aware of hownew court rulings, like the Hosty case, poten-tially limit their first amendment rights.According to the Student Press Law Center, in“the Hosty vs. Carter case, the Seventh CircuitCourt of Appeals said the Supreme Court’s 1988Hazelwood decision limiting high school stu-dents’ free expression rights could extend tocollege” newspapers too. Journalism educatorsare appealing this, wanting the Supreme Courtto rule on the Hosty decision. Student journal-ists will be the journalists of the future, and sowhen their rights are suppressed, this is of con-cern to the journalism community as a whole.All these fascinating issues affectingand afflicting the contemporary press were dis-cussed in this media ethics forum. This wasmoderated by myself, the president of the cam-pus chapter of the Society of ProfessionalJournalists; and Mike Nevradakis, the formerpresident. It was, in many opinions, a greatsuccess. More forums are planned for thefuture. If you’re interested in journalism,check us out: we meet every Friday at 3 in theColors Café, located in the basement of theStudent Union, down the hall from Beauty andBrains.
November 22 Media Forum
ByLauraPositano
CHANNELWEB.COMEDITORJOECAPONI,Courtesy of buskinjournalism.org
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...